I just started a large group of new people. It's going good so far, but I've run into a recent issue with a player. During a few encounters, he will watch the damage each monster takes, and announce how much damage is needed to kill the monster. For me, it kinda takes away the whole RP aspect to it.
Is this normal when it comes to players, or is it something that should be looking out for?
It's normal for players to want to metagame somewhat, they want to feel like they're prepared, but I would personally just ask him to either keep it to himself or secretly start changing encounters. (I.E. Altering a monster's stats, like increasing HP, Attack Damage, and so on. But be careful not to imbalance the encounter.) It's for this particular reason that when someone takes their turn, I'll encourage them to ask questions about what's happening around them. Like "How do my friends look? Battered and bruised, or okay?" and "How messed up is this ogre looking?" Things that I can answer in a way that add to the immersion of the game.
Not normal but not unheard of.
2 considerations. The first is that if you give that info, he'll stop tracking it. The second is that the HP listed is the average value. Monsters can have more or less HP. Heck, some can already be damaged at the start of a fight.
Me, I like to give the HP & AC. Then nobody has to play guessing games and they can just focus their attention on action instead of tracking minutiae.
I'm not sure I'd call this "metagaming" if they're using direct observations of combat to figure out how much damage takes down a monster. If that's what the player is really doing, I wouldn't worry too much about it. It shows they're paying attention at least. 
I'd call it metagaming if you throw gnolls at a player and he blurts out "I read the MM and we need to do 20-30 pts damage to take them down". That sucks and is against the spirit of the game.
To battle that, I like to mix up monsters and abilities and other stuff to keep the players guessing. Use gnolls, but make them blue or make them look like dog-men instead of hyena-men. Let the bugbears have warlocks in their midst. Give the grell dimension door as an innate ability. Give the dragon cleric spells instead of wizard spells.
Remember to keep it fair, and adjust the CR & XP if needed. But there's nothing that says you have to use monsters exactly as described in the MM.
I still use 4e "Bloodied" as a descriptor. It doesn't do anything except tell the PCs that they are in fact injuring this big-bag-of-HP monster. I also (usually) tell them when a monster gets down to 10% of its original HP, describing somebody who looks like he can barely stand up or starts looking around for an easy escape route.
My players do track monster AC based on how their attack rolls come out, and if somebody accurately states "His Armor Class is X" I confirm that. Let a player write it on a chalkboard or whatever, since it makes the calculations easier to keep track. It also helps any new players understand how the mechanics work. Sometimes a more-experienced player will realize "These guys over here are wearing just their shirts but the tough guy is in something metal," and I don't mind that because it adds a detail to the story.
Hit points are a concept that we players understand as a number, but they are not without their obvious indicators to the characters as well - the player announcing how much damage needs to be dealt in order to take the monster down is nothing more than phrasing "we've got him on the ropes now, go in for the finishing blow!" with different words.
There's not much you can do about it, so don't bother worrying about it.
If it's a pet peeve of yours, roll the monsters' HP in front of the encounter rather than going for the HP suggestion.
Nykolo wrote:
iserith wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
agree with the majority of foiks here, don't sweat it, at least they are egaged, If it bothers you, roll up individual HPs instead of using the averge.
That's really weird. In all my years of gaming, I've never seen a player do that before.
I don't mind my players tracking the HP. I don't tell them, but if they learn it from combat experience, I'm fine with that and don't randomize HP values (that's really unpopular with all my players). I personally would tell players to not talk with each other in terms of HP and rather use phrases like "He has a good chance to kill X in one hit with his axe."
My daughter likes to do this sometimes. I don't really mind too much as long as it doesn't interfere with the game - specifically with creatures that the party has not encountered previously. They've slain enough goblins, orcs, hobgoblins and giant rats to know what it takes to take them out.
As others have said - at least the players are engaged. How I keep it to a minimum - I don't give out too much info on failed or successfull spell saves. If they specifically ask, I'll try say something like "The hobgoblins were not running at you as quickly as anticipated and the blast from the fireball did not seem effect the three at the back of the pack as much as anticipated."
Rya.Reisender wrote:
It doesn't drive me crazy as a DM or a player. I'd rather have folks stay 'in character' as much as possible, but I'm not going to insist on it.
If I were you, I'd take 5 or 10 minutes out of the start of the next session, and get your players' feelings about 'semi-metagaming'. If they aren't bothered by it, then just igore it.
I might also suggest, if people DO want a more immersive experience, ways to communicate similar information 'in character'. Rather than saying, "That thing has taken 25hp, the max hp for that creature is 32, don't waste a 'daily' on it..." say... "Toothy Charlie over there looks like he's bleeding out, Alzar can probably take him with an Eldrich bolt. Come on Malthazar.. you blast that blue guy in the corner and I'll wade in an mop up the mess."
I prefer option two at my tables - as a player or a DM,. but I wouldn't walk away from a game if one of the players consistantly went with option one for communicating at a table. Sometimes it's best to 'lead by example'... have your NPC speak 'in character'. Award Inspiration for speaking in character. Avoid 'metagame' references as a DM.
I had players guessing a monster's hit points once. Every time someone said something like "Okay, it should have X hit points left now" I added 10 hit points. Hasn't happened since.
These days I tell players when a monster is "bloodied," and nobody bothers trying to remember how much damage they've dealt and deducing the monster's hit points from that, especially since the bloodying hit may have dropped the monster to precisely half hp or 1 for all they know.
I'd only be concerned if there's metagaming abuse, such as declaring to another player who is about to cast magic missile: the enemy should only have 4 more hit points, so only use 2 magic missiles on this one and split the rest. Unless there's a valid in-game reason a character should know this, then it's metagaming. But, as noted, unless its disrupting every one else's enjoyment, then not a big deal, and using variable HP is a decent practice if you aren't already. If I have 3 ogres, I take the DMG advice on making them a little different and maybe have the guy with the runny nose have 5 less HP than normal, and the one with the giant warted nose have 5 hp more. I also am fair in giving descriptions about most opponents' conditions, such as being heavily winded and struggling, or the construct is grinding metal on metal, can't take too much more of that type of abuse.
Not doing this to "thwart" a player, however. Never solve a player problem in-game.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Rya.Reisender wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Nykolo wrote:
There was a discussion about AC a few weeks back and my stance on HP is the same. If the players are going to work it out by trial-and-error anyway then I see no harm in sharing the information so players focus on the game rather than the math(s).
Typically my players don't ask for the hit points, and I use descriptions like "bloodied" at half hit points to let the players know when they are making progress.
I can see the point that "ending with the fiction" rather than the game mechanics can help with immersion, so I would recommend having a chat with your players about this if it's a problem for anybody.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I've always tried to avoid this by varying the monsters HP by a couple of points. If there are three monsters they're fighting and the MM says their HP is 45, then I'll say somthing like: "There are three guards, one with a eye patch in front, one with black markings all over his armor, and one with an evil grin on his face." Then behind the DM screen I'll write:
Eye Patch - 47
Black Marks - 44
Evil Grin - 43
This prevents the players from knowing exactly how much HP they have, and also adds flavor to the campaign I think. There's no reason why every monster should have the exact same HP, especially since its not like that in real life.
In my campaigns, the monsters rarely have the exact amount of HP as stated in the Monster Manual. I often round it up, or add a few hitpoints on purpose to make it a tougher fight. What I also do, is tell the players how wounded a monster looks. This is how they know if a monster is near death, or far from it.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Hahahah, that's awesome!
Yeah, I’m fine with describing that a monster is looking pretty beaten up. I’ll also make my descriptions of the damage done to a monster much more severe when it’s low on HP.
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Sorry didn't took time to read all 29 post so I'Lm sorry if I repeat what someone else already said, but to answer the OP, some player like to know how the battle fare, so try to give them some information, describe the state of the opponent. Even if the combat capabilities in DnD are not affected by HP, you can still give a description that can give an idea on the remaining HP of the target. Remember that HP is closer to reflect the will to fight, rather then meat and blood.
Here is how I breakdown my combat description when I DM:
between 50 and 100% cannot see much difference.
50% you see the target start to get injured a little
30% he start to be slugish and a little bit slower (without affecting his combat capabilities, just a flavorfull insight that experience fighter can reconize in there opponent when fighting them)
under 20% the target start to really be beat up
under 10% the target start to feel hopelessness and start to accept the eventuallity of defeat
at 1 HP the monster is gruggy, his still attack full power, his combat ability stay unchanged, but the description, the flavor text change so my player don't feel the need to keep track of damage since I will tell them with description.
I do this mainly with the big monster, I don't start wating time on kobold with 5hp. Or I'll give the description on demand if a player ask for a specific monster description.
Try to give some hint to your players, queues that an experience combatant could reconized, without changing the stats block (since the game do not take into account that a fighter with 1HP shoudl fight differently then a fighter at full HP) just give flavorfull color to the combat.
EDIT: true some monster (construct and undead) don't show sign of fatigue, but doing gruesome damage (you tear off the entire bicep off his arm) can do the same effect. Ripping the arm off a human might be appropriate for the killing blow, but on a undead it could be the 50% mark. and it's in those nuances that you can create depth and emerssion in the combat, instead of just being rolling dice.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
Agreed. For example, I've had my players ask me if they could tell how hurt one of their party members was.
Player 2: I'm down to my last hitpoints guys.
Player 1: Can I see whether player 2 needs healing?
DM: Player 2, how many HP have you got left?
Player 2: Ehhh, I'm down to 5.
DM: He looks really beaten up. There's blood gushing from behind his plate, which is severely dented. He also has dozens of minor cuts, but you suspect there are some far more serious wounds underneath all his armor.
Player 1: Alright, I'll use my Cure Moderate Wounds then.
You can have your players talk about hitpoints and statistics, while also immersing themselves in the story. Those two do not have to conflict with one another.
i describe in deatail what kind of effect the damage does. I don' share AC or HP, but my players eventually figure it out.
Enemy AC is 17
PC: "rolled a 16 to hit" "
Me: "you lunge at the enemy and stab towards him, but he is able to get his sword up just in time to avoid being stabbed"
Next PC: *rolls dice to attack* "ummm 18.."
Me: "you bonk the baddie over the head with yr mace, he wobbles a bit, but still seems none the worse for the wear"
PC: "OK guys, we got to roll AT LEAST an 18 to hit this guy"
When enemies get damaged and start to lsoe HP I always try to explain that. "after taking the mace to the shoulder and the stab wounds from the rogue, this Cultist is having trouble keeping his wits about him. One arm hangs limp, and he is bleeding heavily from multipuk wounds"
It also adds good flavor :D
I'd prefer if my players did the narrating sometimes as I enjoy seeing how they describe things. I'd prefer, using Immaculata's example, if Player 2 said basically what the DM said.
After round 1 of combat, I'd just as soon tell the players what the AC of the monster is and HP rounded to nearest 5 or 10 and let them narrate their own hits or misses. DMs talk too much.
iserith wrote:
guachi wrote:
This conversation actually has me considering providing AC/HP data to my players so they can describe their own actions, rather than relying solely on me to try and narrate combat (both their actions and the monsters). I've never really looked at HP/AC data as gamebreaking if the players know it, but I typically let them piece it together through trial and error first (the AC part), while narrating the damage so far and the effects on the monster (the HP part).
Alduran wrote:
I roll for my monsters HP. So this does not come up for me.
I have to agree with Iserith, even though almost every campaign I've ever played involves exactly the same. It is as if combat suspends roleplaying, when it doesn't have to.
Recently I've been encouraging my players to put more roleplaying into the combat. Usually they'll throw in funny quips, or cool one-liners while doing their actions. But when I also want them to describe their combat actions, I'll just give a very detailed description of what the monster does. This in turn encourages them to do the same.
For example, my players recently fought a Coral Golem in a harbor. Various tents had been constructed on top of ships, for a local circus. The Coral Golem emerged amidst a fleeing crowd, so I had my players roll strength checks to more forward through the crowd. One player asked if he could also tumble past the fleeing crowd, so I said, why not. He rolled a 20.
DM: You are incredibly succesful and bypass the crowd with ease. Tell us how you pull this amazing stunt off.
Player: I leap onto someone that is lying on the ground, and then hop over the shoulders of the fleeing crowd. Then I leap off with a somersault at the end, and take my applause.
You know, I think I’m going to start doing this – on criticals, nat 1s, and killing blows, I’ll let them describe what happens.
guachi wrote:
1) Roll the monsters hit points.
2) Ask the player to stop doing that, because it is making the game less fun for you and presumably they aren't a jerk.
3) If they ARE a jerk, get rid of them.
4) Profit!
Ralif_Redhammer wrote:
akr71 wrote:
Important safety tip, thanks Macv12!
iserith wrote:
Noon wrote:
I think it's quite hard to general say players should describe their actions with more detail. I found this depends 100% on the players. I have players that just can't do anything other than saying "I attack X". Even if I tell them to use their imagination, they just can't seem to make anything up. I tried giving them examples and then they used my example but after that again lacked enough imagination to make up something themselves. I also have other players that are incredibly detailed in their descriptions.
I often feel like my responsibility as DM is to narrate for the players that are unable to do it themselves. It's a lot of work, though. But a really smart player with a lot of imagination can be equally much work, especially if he thinks up a tactic you didn't even think about as DM and didn't prepare for (but you still want to allow it because it's really clever).
There's only one way to get better at describing things and holding up one's end of the conversation of the game: Practice.
On the DM's end, we can award automatic success, advantage, or Inspiration when they do. We can also ask questions of the players to get them to elaborate on their description. What we shouldn't do, in my view, is pick up their slack, especially when that means declaring fictional actions for them.
One way to encourage more detailed combat descriptions, is by being more detailed about it as a DM. If the players imagine what is happening, they can think of cool things to do. I don't agree that you should, but I do think it would improve the narrative. Many DnD sessions, even the most professional ones(if that word even makes sense in this context), come down to a lot of dice rolling till one of the characters or monsters keels over and dies. It becomes no different than an average fight in the old Final Fantasy games: Players and monsters take turns reducing each other's hitpoints, and then the story continues after combat.
And thats a shame. Combat could be part of the story. The dice should be serving the narrative, and resolving unclear outcomes. This is why sometimes as a DM I ignore the outcome of a die roll, if the player is doing something really cool. This kind of harkens back to our old "to fudge, or not to fudge" discussion. If a player misses, but his roleplaying is astounding, then just ignore the dice. The dice are only there to clarify uncertain outcomes, but they should not get in the way of telling a cool story.
A large part of the problem I feel, lies with us as DM's. We often fall into the trap of thinking that monsters are just there to do damage to players. And thus players fall into this mindset as well. But that is really not the case. Monsters are there to provide an interesting action scene, which can unfold in any number of ways. Perhaps we should more often think about about what would be a cool thing for this monster to do in this action scene, rather than how can I maximize the damage to this player?
Take this actual example from a campaign I ran a few years ago:
The players are prisoners in a demonic prison, and they are about to stage a big revolt. They have just seen an innocent npc be thrown into a rock crushing machine, and this opportunity is practically begging them to do the same to one of the guards. One player provides the distraction, while another takes this opportunity to push one of the demon guards into the rock crusher.
Now there was no way I was going to let that demon guard escape this epic death. It is simply too cool, and the dice be damned. I let the players roll none the less, just to see how much effort it would take. If the dice were unfortunate, then maybe we'd first get a tense struggle above the machine, like in Temple of Doom. But he was going to go in either way. Everyone has a big laugh as I describe the gory outcome in great detail. Not a single roll was made for the damage.
Another example:
One of the players struggles with an enemy pirate while boarding their ship. They both go into the water, where a hungry crocodile awaits. The player tries to climb out, while the pirate hang on to his foot. He kicks the pirate back into the water, and I allow it. No roll needed. I rule that the crocodile eats the pirate alive, and I don't even roll for damage. He's dead, because narratively this is just too much fun. No one wants that enemy pirate to make it out alive.
And when you get descriptive with the combat, your players might do the same.
iserith wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Noon wrote:
I have a new player in my campaign. Well, two new players - my wife, who has never play an RPG before, and a mutual friend who has played for many years.
He chose to play a Bard. He wasn't, however, keen on narrating his actions (despite Bard's being perfect for such a thing). He really just wanted to let the dice do all the talking. "I roll Persuasion. I roll Insight, etc." He happens to be quite witty and sharp, so he's actually perfect for this off-the-cuff narration. To make things worse, he chose Vicious Mockery as a spell. A spell whose verbal component is the magical equivalent of "Yo momma" jokes. He wasn't excited when I said I wanted him to actually come up with a new put down every single time he casts it.
He rose to the challenge, though! His best effort was versus the raging, shirtless Barbarian that was giving the party fits as none of them were aware of the Barbarian's ability of damage resistance when raging. Except versus Psychic damage. Which is what Vicious Mockery is.
Bard: "You look stupid with your outie belly button! Ha ha! Outie! Outie! Stupid looking outie!"
DM: Rolls a 12. "He misses his save. Roll Damage."
Bard: Rolls a 4.
DM: "Vicious Mockery is Psychic damage, right?"
Bard: Flip, flip, flip. "Yes. Why?"
DM: "The only damage a raging barbarian isn't resistant to is psychic." The barbarian looks at his belly button. He says, "My belly button not ugly. It pretty. My mommy said <ERKKKK>". "He keels over and dies" (As he had only 4 HP left.)
The jokes are either funny because they are funny or funny because they are just so bad. But he always tries and we've all enjoyed his effort. "Fun and memorable adventure" indeed.
iserith wrote:
Nykolo wrote:
Barky wrote:
shintashi wrote:
Barky wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Did this over the weekend and it seemed to go over pretty well with the gaming group. I was a bitworried that the PCs would overstep their bounds and use it to wheedle extra advantages out of it, but they all did a great job.
Ralif_Redhammer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Haha, that is fantastic. I love it when the players get into it like that. That is very rewarding for a DM.
Imaculata wrote:
fylth wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Armor class is merely a game mechanic to convey how hard it is to hit someone. Often in 3.5 this kind of mixes up actual armor, with dodging. It is up to the DM to provide a narrative translation of this game mechanic to the players.
Often what I'll do is when a player misses an ememy with a high AC due to dexterity, is give a description of how the enemy moves around a lot, causing them to miss their attacks. Or if the enemy is wearing heavy armor, I'll describe how the attack kind of glances off the heavy platemail, leaving barely a scratch.
I'll also describe how the player is having difficulty hitting one of the weak points in the armor. But when they do manage to hit, I'll describe how they'll strike a place underneath the elbow, or behind the knees, with a precission blow.
You can also do this with spells. If a player misses due to a shield spell, I describe how a transparent barrier appears briefly, pushing the player's weapon away from the wizard.
FrogReaver wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
If "immersion" is a thing you get off on, you are well-advised to learn how to maintain it despite the odd reference to mechanics happening. Because it will happen.
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Just curious. Has anyone ever tried to play a D&D game where:
1. PC HP is hidden to the players
2. DM rolls for each PC's hp maximum for the day after a long rest.
3. DM rolls monster attacks and damage behind screen and applies it to the PC's hp and just narrates what is happening
This seems like it would be a fun way to play. It would take away some of the "I know I'm not about to die feeling from combat and keep you on edge". Each combat would feel more deadly just due to their always feeling like you have a chance you could be KO'ed. The Dm would have to do a good job narrating everything to make this work.
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
iserith wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
iserith wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
iserith wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
iserith wrote:
If Im a player and I find a fellow player doing too much meta-game talk, like telling us what the opponents AC and HP are. I usually will try to respond in-game to his odd behavior.
Barbarian: ok, guys we have to roll 17 to hit them, got it?
Rogue: what? I dont see 17 of anything. just use your axe, go for the neck, they dont have neck guards
barbarian: no I mean they have AC 17, you have to beat it
Rogue: what? just beat them up, we can get that AC thing later whatever that is.
Barbarian: they have 22 hit points I think.
Cleric: ok, Im gonna try to cast some dispelling magic on him, his mind is clearly affected by something odd, cover me!
Barbarian: what?
I have never had a bizarre discussion like that at my table. I think some of you are having difficulty with the concept that you can discuss meta-topics such as AC and HP, while also playing out the combat. The two do not have to exclude one another. And when you deliberately pretend that you don't understand what the player is talking about, then you are being disruptive. It should be totally fine for a player to discuss combat statistics. That is not going to stop you from role playing combat.
For example, this usually happens in my own campaign:
Player 1: I have only 2 hitpoints left guys!
Player 2: Can I see how wounded he is?
DM: It looks pretty bad, but how about you make a heal-check to assess the situation?
-Rolls a 16-
DM: He looks like he is on death's doorstep. Your friend has a devastating wound to the abdomen, and he could bleed out if you don't treat him right away.
Player 2: Okay, I start healing him right away. Can I clean the wound first?
DM: How do you go about it?
Player 2: Well I have a water skin and some clean bandages. Do I need to roll for that?
DM: Sure, make another heal check.
etc.
Imaculata wrote:
Awakened_Gazebo wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Great example Iserith. Both work fine in my opinion. It is great if players take the initiative, and describe their wounds themselves. But if they don't, then I think the DM should not hesitate to jump in and provide a flavor description of the situation. During a session you'll have different players, all role playing in different ways. And I think it's fine to allow players to choose for themselves how they want to play out their character.
If I may sidetrack a little, if character 2 in the above example had failed their check to examine character 1, while player 2 is fully aware that character 1 has 2 HP, what would have happened?
Macv12 wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
"Player 2 knows that Player 1's character has 2 hit points remaining."
Which does not mean that CHARACTER 2 knows that CHARACTER 1 has 2 hit points remaining.
If we are going to pretend our fictional constructs have a level of internal fictional rconsistency, that needs to be pointed out.
DemoMonkey wrote:
"A check is not required to "justify" the character's decision to apply healing."
The DM has determined that the character knowing the degree of injury is neither impossible, nor automatic, and therefore a roll is required.
That's what checks are for.
DemoMonkey wrote:
"or would you tell the player that he is not permitted to have his or her character apply healing to the wounded character?"
No. I wouldn't need to. Because they wouldn't try to, once they (the player) was made aware that their character was not in possession of the information.
Your players would? Why?
DemoMonkey wrote:
iserith wrote:
Oddly enough, every time my Paladin did something dramatic and heroic (such as jump into a 30' deep lake wearing half-plate ... and a rope around his chest), he had less than 10 HP left.
I knew that, but nobody else did - because I didn't say a word about it.
So: if my Paladin launches into something over-the-top, hit him with a Staff of Healing, then go save whoever he's trying to rescue !
Does this confession destroy anybody's immersion in the scene? 
If a character seems wounded but I know they have enough HP to survive another hit, it's more exciting and cool to go after the bad guy that's escaping, pushing through the pain.
If I know the character is almost about to be KO'd, and that character's player will have to sit on their thumbs and wait while their avatar in the world is out of commission (or worse, dead forever), I'll want to heal that player and let them keep participating in the action.
I'll figure out whatever in-character motivations need to rise to the surface to justify either course of action. The important thing is that cool stuff happens, and all players at the table get to experience it.
Hmm well, I guess there are 2 camps here regarding player/character knowledge. I *think* Demomonkey, the OP and Myself would prefer a slightly greater distinction between player/character knowledge than AaronofBarbaria, Imaculata and Iserith. Correct me if Im wrong
From my pov the OP is dissatisfied with the amount of metagaming in his game, and he would like some advice on getting a player to stop calculating AC, hp and the like and passing that information on to his fellow players.
So said in other words, it ruins the OPs immersion. Telling him it doesnt ruin yours doesnt really help him.
I think that the easiest would be to just talk with said player. Or even with the group as a whole. Next time you are going to play take 5 minutes to discuss the level of metagaming you and your players would prefer.
Im not some RP purist freak, if a player was announcing he only had to 2hp left, I wouldnt refuse to aid him, because my character couldnt understand his mumbo jumbo language.
But Ive tried being in games where players had their own copies of the monster manual and literally just read the all the entries relevant to the current encounter... that I found annoying as hell. I dont need the player of a low intelligence barbarian to tell me what I should and shouldnt use of spells against clay golems and whatnot. I like to play out the panic when a wrong spell is applied to a raging golem, putting it in overdrive mode.
So AaronofBarbaria, Imaculata, Iserith and others. Where do you draw the line? (not critizising, Im just curius)
1) its ok for a player to calculate monster hp and AC and pass that information on to fellow players, in game statistic terms
2) its ok for a player to use any information they have read in the MM in-game, like lich immunities/vulnerabilities, whatever they can recall correct or not etc. and act on it.
3) its ok for a player to read his own MM, and pass that information on to fellow players during combat. And act on it.
Personally I like to do as the "problem" player in OP example and calculate AC and HP, but I wont pass on any gamestatistics for other players. But I will use it to assess whether I should use power attack, blast my highest level damaging spell at the opponent and so on.
If you want the players to be surprised by a monster, make one up. They can't look up stats in your head.
If you keep playing with MM monsters, it's a matter of time before the players get used to their stats, and have no choice but to know the optimal strategies for dealing with them. Everyone knows how to kill trolls now.
I would kill looking up stuff in the manual during play because it's distracting, not because it's unfair.
Awakened_Gazebo wrote:
Awakened_Gazebo wrote:
Awakened_Gazebo wrote:
"Hmm well, I guess there are 2 camps here regarding player/character knowledge. I *think* Demomonkey, the OP and Myself would prefer a slightly greater distinction between player/character knowledge than AaronofBarbaria, Imaculata and Iserith. Correct me if Im wrong."
I would say you are quite correct in that generalization.
And it's up to anyone reading this to look at both approaches that have been (well) laid out, carefuilly, consider their implications, and decide:which one will give them - and their play group - the experience they are looking for.
Use that one.
iserith wrote:
I agree on most of your points Iserith. The challenge shouldn't come from "not knowing what the monster is weak to". It should be about forming a strategy and working together. I don't think the players should need to be psychic to figure out how to kill a monster. That is why I give them enough clues to indicate what is going on (monster has fast healing, or monster has damage resistance), or I allow them to make a knowledge check.
If there is a good reason why the player's character might know a monster's weakness, then I won't even ask for a skill check at all. He/she just knows it.
Imaculata wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
iserith wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
iserith wrote:
Awakened_Gazebo wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Failing, using only information your character knows, is sometimes preferable (ie more fun ) than succeeding using information you don't think your character should have.
Of course to do that you would need to start with "What do I think I know?." rather than "I know everything. How can I justify that?". which is, I increasingly suspect, an unbridgeable gulf in approaches.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
iserith wrote:
BadMeeple wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
I can why see some people would prefer less/no seperation between player/character knowledge than myself. Especially regarding ease of play and ofcourse helping speeding combat up.
here is another question, hopefully not derailing the thread too much
What about GM knowledge? Is there a distinction between the GM and the monsters? at my table there certainly are. And whenever a GM mixes those 2 things up too much he is sure to get some grief from the players.
For example the GM knows the rogue is down to his last 8 hps, there is a lousy minion capable of dealing 7 hp damage ( the GM uses average dmg to speed up combat) and there is a boss minion capable of dealing 9 dmg. Would the überboss be able to go "Snikum go after the fighter, you only deal 7 in dmg, the rogue got 8 left. Spookums go bash that rogue as you deal 9 points of dmg"
" you two *points at 2 other minions* grab the warlock he is only lvl 4 and has already used 2 encounter powers".
Ok, that might have been a bit too much. But how far would you go? Does the badguys autmatically know the fighter has the sentinel feat or do they need to "feel" it first?
Awakened_Gazebo wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
re: Trolls
My Tiamat group had to fight through an encounter with Trolls. Our party temporarily had no spellcasters (Summer Vacation) so I had to improvise a bit. No player was aware of the special rules involving trolls and Fire and Acid, and nobody asked me for information about trolls, either. So I did this:
A troll with 0 HP goes unconscious but is not dead. PCs can see its Regeneration working, healing wounds &c on the troll's body.
At the beginning of the troll's turn, it Regenerates 10 HP (as normal). If the troll has > 0 HP, it stands up and resumes fighting. (It was only "mostly dead". 
)
To kill the troll real dead, the PCs had to bring it to -10 HP or lower. Then it would Regenerate at the beginning of its turn and if still < 0 HP it stays dead.
After the fight, I explained that mechanically I gave the trolls a Death Saving Throw based on its Regeneration.
The party now intends to not only fight trolls until they fall down, but to hit them a real good one after that, too.
P.S. It's only fair - the first step of converting my Paladin PC to an NPC involved me getting curb-stomped by a Troll controlled by our previous DM, down to 2-of-3 failed Death Saves due to blows in combat.
Awakened_Gazebo wrote:
Awakened_Gazebo wrote:
Awakened_Gazebo wrote:
At the risk of getting us all bogged down in Forge jargon, I think that this is basically a disagreement about Stance. Iserith, Aaron and I all seem to DM in what the indie-RPG crowd would call author (or possibly director) stance - making decisions based on what we think would be good things to happen in the game. Others seem to play concretely in actor stance, making decisions based on the persona of whichever NPC they are playing at the time.
In other words, it seems to be a disagreement based on a fundamental difference in what people want to get out of a game. Some people feel that they enjoy themselves the most if they step back and make decisions based on what will be most enjoyable, others feel that they enjoy themselves most if they don't step back, and preserve the game experience by remaining faithful to the character they are portraying.
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Why would a DM use metagame knowledge to get the party killed? He's not the adversary of the players.
As DM I always play every monster as realistic as possible. When determining who each monster attacks I go by many factors "Who hurt the monster last?" "Who is closest?" "Is the monster intelligent or uses only its instincts?" "Who does the monster consider to be the biggest threat?" (can be different from the actual real biggest threat). In the end if I'm undecisive because there are 2 PCs that are equally likely to be attacked, I simply roll for it. I tell my players which number means which target and roll visibly in that case.
I expect similar behavior from other DMs too. If a DM is always like "All monsters attack the same unit so it's dead on the first turn to increase odds of winning", I'd probably be looking for a new DM soon.
As DM I also expect similar behavior from players. They simply should play their characters in realistic way. They can decide what that realistic way is, but they also need to be able to explain it to me when I ask.